ISO Simultaneous requirement 1998 vs 2016

[Kedu]

Q: Has ISO updated its simultaneous requirement definition from 1998 to 2016?

Background: One position (5 holes) has double CZ modifiers and one SIM and the second position (4 holes) has CZ and SZ and also one SIM. Same datums on both. Is simultaneous requirement implied for both sets of holes?

For my life I am not understanding those callouts.
I need some basic understanding of the simultaneous requirements in ISO. Any good discussions to point out to?

What I knew (until today) is CZ = simultaneous requirement in ISO.

 

[greenimi]

Pmarc,
Thank you pmarc for enlighten and improve my education. Interesting stuff ISO GPS.

Reading all the posts and having just a few encounters with ISO drawings I have one side question myself (and I know, shameless disclaimer, that has been discussed may many times here and on linkedin about it):

Why ISO GPS does not have year specification shown on the print? The OP said ISO 1101 however no year specified.
Likewise in my limited experience with ISO, I’ve seen some old “withdrawn” German DIN standards shown also with no year. Other drawings had 1302 (no year) or 8015 (no year) and 13715 (no year).
If it is not a confidential information, may I ask you how the company you are working for is controlling their drawings in ISO GPS? Year/ no year?
ISO 8015 (no year) only is enough?

Also, I know you have a great experience in ISO GPS, what would you recommend (your qualified opinion)? In other words “What would you do”?

Honestly, from this point of view (as you said before configuration management) I am glad I am working with ASME . One book, one standard with specified year-edition shown.

Kedu,
Please do not use “unless otherwise specified”. It is a GDT “offensive”, under defined and debatable term.

 

[pmarc]

Kedu,
Yes, ISO approach is totally different than what is in ASME. And you actually summed it up very nicely: "Everything independent unless otherwise specified."

I am not sure if legal, but I would definitely say it is not the best idea to use draft version of the standard in any communication betweeen customer and supplier, especially if one of the parties does not have access to the document. This may lead to different issues and this discussion actually proves it.

But as you said, this is just a draft of the drawing, and that is why I suggested you should simply ask the customer to provide you with information necessary to interpret the callouts.

greenimi,
Not sure why the issue date is not commonly used when referencing ISO standards, but this is what I would recommend to do in order to avoid confusion. I am not sure it would solve all the problems, but I believe it is much better to give the date than not giving it. Like I mentioned in one of my previous entries, the multi-document approach chosen by ISO inherently leads to configuration management complexity (issues?), and so showing the issue date is like helping users not to sink in the GPS pool.